The strategies discussed here may not be about creating new treatments, but rather about using legal and financial power to block competition. In the case of Gilead and Tanafovir, this resulted in the delay of a potentially less harmful drug. There are both legal and ethical concerns surrounding this issue, particularly because patients' health was affected. The courts will determine whether these lawsuits can proceed based on whether Gilead knew the newer drug would be better. The key question is how much evidence was necessary for Gilead to have a responsibility to advance the drug.
For decades, drugmakers have argued that patents are critical to bringing new drugs to the market. But in 2004, when a promising H.I.V. treatment emerged, Gilead Sciences decided to slow-walk its release to maximize profit on the company’s existing patents.
Rebecca Robbins, who covers the pharmaceutical industry for The Times, discusses one man’s case and how patents can create perverse incentives to delay new and better drugs.
Guest: Rebecca Robbins, a business reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry for The New York Times.
Background reading:
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.